Bombshell: Bin Laden worked for US till 9/11

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Nonetheless, the original is totally ridiculous.

The fact that Leo Wanta, the $27 trillion man is mentioned, pretty much makes that document fake in my mind.

Oh, I absolutely agree. There are more than enough reasons to believe the document is total crap. Figuring out which of the two versions is the "correct" one doesn't really change anything.

 

[R.Mackey]

I missed the Leo Wanta connection.

How about the Loch Ness Monster? Any sightings of Nessie?

ETA: Yup, there he is... How'd I miss that??

Honestly, Truthers, this "document" is the kind of thing designed to PUNK you guys. And you still don't get it.

 

[MikeW]

Wasn't it around the same time Edmonds started shooting her mouth off that the blame started to shift to KSM?

No. The idea that bin Laden was given 100% of the responsibility for planning the operation first, then the story changed later, is a myth invented by truthers for their own purposes. In reality the Blair dossier (said by many to be a parroting of the US intelligence view) said "the detailed planning for the terrorist attacks of 11 September was carried out by one of Osama Bin Laden's close associates", and this was before Afghanistan was attacked. Meanwhile, if you look at the White House press conferences for the time, you can see they talk about al Qaeda more than bin Laden, and on several occasions say the fight is about much more than just one man.

 

[Brainster]

[qimg]http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/marty_feldman.jpg[/qimg]

P-Tech.

Aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrggggggggghhhhhh!

 

[Caustic Logic]

yeah, ive already read that awhile back. that still didnt tell me the source of this letter.

No one here can tell you either just who faked this letter and when. The site gives good reasons to doubt its authenticity. Only a false-lead-CT-gibberish-spewing agency would release this to an FOIA requester in 2003. And I don't see that, or anything in the header box. No specific agency to even call and ask "is this yours?" No supp. docs. No other clues at all.

So... who was it again that said this was a real clue? That's the people to ask where it came from. Don't believe what they say of course, but I'm sure it'll start like "well, that's what's so mysterious..." and get all convoluted and full of fascinating distracting details...

Plus, since it's not a real clue, there's not much reason to identify a prankster, is there? You hoping to press charges?

 

[Caustic Logic]

'"Red Mercury" is one of those things like "pyroclastic flows" in a context other than vulcanology -- it's not real, it's not anything. It's just a meme. It's some piece of nonsense that some nut came up with, and some other nut believed, and it makes the rounds filling the mouths of idiots who parrot whatever they hear. And, somehow, it wound up here.

It's good you're here with that knowledge. Without it, I'd miss such an obvious clue - on top of several others - so that only the dumbest and most deluded would buy the hoax.

So Senenmut, you understand this clue of yours is someone playing a joke on you now, right? And it would be embarassing to continue on the presumption it "might be real"?

 

[T.A.M.]

ITS BEEN 8 YEARS AND OSAMA BIN LADEN HASNT BEEN CAUGHT SINCE, LETTING ALONE THE US LET HIM SLIP AWAY

http://web.archive.org/web/20060217051331/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/

I am liable to believe sibel's claims afterall look who have benefitted immensely from the wars in the middle east, the military industrial complex. where do you think the billions of dollars thats been spent is going?

Why does the bolded not surprise me in the least.

TAM

 

[Foolmewunz]

Just as a footnote on Ted Gunderson:
Let me add that this somewhat strange person has strong connections to the hoax producers at the American Free Press. Not only was he interviewed by American Free Press more than one time, but he is also a regular speaker at AFP conferences , and ran a southeastern bureau for AFP back in 2002. This is probably why the AFP calls him an AFP “advertiser”.

No guilt by association intended, but everything Gunderson claims should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism.

There's no such thing as "just a footnote" on Gunderson. There will always be another, "Oh, wait, isn't he the nutbar who said....." moment. From McMartin Preschool to Oklahoma City to Sonny Bono, he'll always have a new routine to try out on the public.

Here he is in 2008 solving the Sonny Bono hit.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23483093-12377,00.html

 

[metamars]

Except for JREF, I never bother reading the writings of Loomatics!

Then I strongly advise you to read the book, and to educate yourself on the subject you are allegedly so interested in.

Once you know the first thing about what you're talking about, I believe you will find yourself less easily duped.

Egad, yet another fail for the Truth Movement.

Except for JREF, I never bother reading the writings of Loomatics!

But seriously, I wish I had the time to read that, and many other books. In the meantime, you can take a look at the dailykos thread on the Sibel Edmonds bombshell, where, unlike JREF where the percentage of snark + insult + inane is over 90%, I'd say it's less than 20%.

In particular, one of the posters named Mary2002, in a post entitled "Leahy & Grassley both said she was credible", mentions exactly this book, but makes no suggestion such as you do, viz.

unless you can show how he and his hundreds of interviewees got it totally wrong, Ms. Edmonds is not even faintly credible.

Mary2002:

We did, after all, have the CIA and NSA actively hiding from the FBI the facts about a couple of the 9/11 hijackers location in the US before 9/11. Read Lawrence Wright's book, The Looming Tower, for some insight on how the left hand can not know what the right hand is doing. Given the relationship of someone like Woolsey in the Chechnyan situation, it would be hard to believe that there were NOT any eyebrows to be raised there.

(She does say that the title is sensationalized, though.)

If you want to debate Edmonds' new claim with somebody who has already read the book, I suggest that you either engage Mary2002 at dailykos, or else, invite her here. Frankly, as she is obviously capable of making serious posts, my guess is that she'll take one look at the half-wits and misanthropes of the JREF forum, and say "No thanks". So, if you really want a serious discussion/debate on Looming Tower + Edmonds, I suggest that you post there. You can always quote her here, and provide links.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

The fact is at one time we had an interest in UBL fighting the Russians and now we are in that same country.

Wrong. The US funded the Afghani's directly, not the visiting Arabs. Learn history.

There was a CIA/UBL relationship no doubt in my mind.

Evidence?

The President and his family had a relationship with the Bin Laden family both on 9/11 and for years leading up to it.

Most of the bin Laden family, as well as the royal family of Saudi Arabia have disowned him. Read Steven Coll's Ghost Wars, as well as anything on bin Laden by Peter Berg. And that's just off the top of my head; others can chime in and list other references.

Any Bin Laden family members right after 9/11 were allowed to flee with little questioning even as his picture was posted everywhere as the main culprit.

You're parroting a misrepresentation. Read:
http://www.911myths.com/html/family_flights.html

There is also the story of him being in a hospital somewhere right before 9/11 and CIA people visiting him.

Yet more 911myths education needed here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin_met_the_cia.html

Again I find that not hard to believe. Alec Station was shutdown later by President Bush.

And what? That means that any and all investigation on bin Laden stopped? Is that what you're trying to suggest?

And again, where the hell is he? Give me a break.

Stop with your knee jerk pretend skepticism.

You need to stop with your knee jerk listing of refuted myths. Argumentum via Mass is not impressive if none of the individual arguments dovetail and mutually support, let alone when each individual item is a misrepresentation to begin with.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Except for JREF, I never bother reading the writings of Loomatics!

But seriously, I wish I had the time to read that, and many other books. In the meantime, you can take a look at the dailykos thread on the Sibel Edmonds bombshell, where, unlike JREF where the percentage of snark + insult + inane is over 90%, I'd say it's less than 20%.

In particular, one of the posters named Mary2002, in a post entitled "Leahy & Grassley both said she was credible", mentions exactly this book, but makes no suggestion such as you do, viz.




Mary2002:



(She does say that the title is sensationalized, though.)

If you want to debate Edmonds' new claim with somebody who has already read the book, I suggest that you either engage Mary2002 at dailykos, or else, invite her here. Frankly, as she is obviously capable of making serious posts, my guess is that she'll take one look at the half-wits and misanthropes of the JREF forum, and say "No thanks". So, if you really want a serious discussion/debate on Looming Tower + Edmonds, I suggest that you post there. You can always quote her here, and provide links.

Shorter Metamars: I'm too lazy to refute this on my own, so I'm going to point to someone else as if it helps my argument.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Except for JREF, I never bother reading the writings of Loomatics!

But seriously, I wish I had the time to read that, and many other books. In the meantime, you can take a look at the dailykos thread on the Sibel Edmonds bombshell, where, unlike JREF where the percentage of snark + insult + inane is over 90%, I'd say it's less than 20%.

In particular, one of the posters named Mary2002, in a post entitled "Leahy & Grassley both said she was credible", mentions exactly this book, but makes no suggestion such as you do, viz.




Mary2002:



(She does say that the title is sensationalized, though.)

If you want to debate Edmonds' new claim with somebody who has already read the book, I suggest that you either engage Mary2002 at dailykos, or else, invite her here. Frankly, as she is obviously capable of making serious posts, my guess is that she'll take one look at the half-wits and misanthropes of the JREF forum, and say "No thanks". So, if you really want a serious discussion/debate on Looming Tower + Edmonds, I suggest that you post there. You can always quote her here, and provide links.

Mary's welcome here, as are any members who can abide by the MA and wish to discuss things. She doesn't need an invitation.

What does she say about your thread title, I wonder? Sensationalized?

(And real nice of you to tell us that you have such a closed mind that you only read things which you know will agree with your point of view. Settles a few questions, I guess.)

 

[Foolmewunz]

Shorter Metamars: I'm too lazy to refute this on my own, so I'm going to point to someone else as if it helps my argument.

More important.... Why would Metamars start a thread, the topic of which he is incapable of discussing in depth?

 

[jhunter1163]

If you want to debate Edmonds' new claim with somebody who has already read the book, I suggest that you either engage Mary2002 at dailykos, or else, invite her here. Frankly, as she is obviously capable of making serious posts, my guess is that she'll take one look at the half-wits and misanthropes of the JREF forum, and say "No thanks". So, if you really want a serious discussion/debate on Looming Tower + Edmonds, I suggest that you post there. You can always quote her here, and provide links.

If Mary2002 wants to come here and engage us, she will; and I'd lay money that if she does, she'll get schooled just like all the other poli-sci major wannabe pundits that have come here over the past couple years have (JihadJane, I'm looking at you).

Metamars, ask yourself this; why is it that all of the leading lights of the Twoof movement, EVERY ONE, have declined to come here? It couldn't be because their lies and deceit and ignorance would be instantly and unmercifully exposed for the world to see, could it?

Gage reads here. Avery reads here. The Jones boys read here. Why don't they post?

 

[Justin39640]

There's no such thing as "just a footnote" on Gunderson. There will always be another, "Oh, wait, isn't he the nutbar who said....." moment. From McMartin Preschool to Oklahoma City to Sonny Bono, he'll always have a new routine to try out on the public.

Here he is in 2008 solving the Sonny Bono hit.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23483093-12377,00.html

maybe it was the same NWO agents that knocked down the light poles moved that tree in the way

 

[R.Mackey]

Except for JREF, I never bother reading the writings of Loomatics!

But seriously, I wish I had the time to read that, and many other books. In the meantime, you can take a look at the dailykos thread on the Sibel Edmonds bombshell, where, unlike JREF where the percentage of snark + insult + inane is over 90%, I'd say it's less than 20%.

Yes, there seem to be many more credulous idiots over there. Am I supposed to be impressed? Heck, you've got folks there clinging to the Afghan Pipeline nonsense. Yet even so, over there, they aren't pushing this as evidence of OMGIHOP.

This is like the sparring I've had with Childlike Empress. There is no freaking conspiracy. But that doesn't mean there haven't been abuses of the judicial system along the way. You're conflating. Just because Bush/Cheney did bad things doesn't mean they're automatically guilty of every evil thing we can imagine.

Anyway, stop making excuses and read the damn book. Then open your mouth. "I don't have time" while making hundreds of lengthy and naive posts here is the limpest excuse ever.

Do your homework or you get an F. Pretty simple concept.

 

[metamars]

If Mary2002 wants to come here and engage us, she will; and I'd lay money that if she does, she'll get schooled just like all the other poli-sci major wannabe pundits that have come here over the past couple years have (JihadJane, I'm looking at you).

Metamars, ask yourself this; why is it that all of the leading lights of the Twoof movement, EVERY ONE, have declined to come here? It couldn't be because their lies and deceit and ignorance would be instantly and unmercifully exposed for the world to see, could it?

Gage reads here. Avery reads here. The Jones boys read here. Why don't they post?

Perhaps because they share my view that JREF is a bastion of half-wits and misanthropes?

A better question, I suppose, is why do I post here? I'm not entirely sure, actually - to a large extent, I view this as a form of entertainment, though not of a very uplifting kind. I mean, the endless parade of half-wits congratulating themselves for (from my perspective) failing to connect dots or posit plausible explanations with the same facility as a 10 year old, provides an endless 'rubber-necking delay' kind of diversion.

On the positive side, if one is willing to look past the crap, some good information and arguments gets posted by debunkers. Some.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

No, I don't think Dick Cheney was plotting directly with Bin Laden. Do I think that a Chechnyan peace NGO organize and run by Ledeen, Woolsey, Perle, etc. could have been involved in surreptitiously funding, via Turkish contacts to launder, some Afghan based training camps for fighters to send to Chechnya and harass the Soviets? Sure...

There's a general error that most truthers continually commit and I want to comment on: Equating anything to do with Afghanistan with the US being associated with bin Laden. Granted, Mary2002's not making such a direct charge herself - she's building an argument about "working through "proxies", and that topic deserves its own treatment - but so many other truthers make that presumptive leap that I feel the need to address it.

No one - no one - denies that the US funded, trained, and gave assistance to the anti-Soviet Afghani Mujahadeen, but people automatically conflating those with bin Laden demonstrate an extreme lack of understanding. Read Looming Tower and other works. Understand just how late bin Laden came into the conflict, and how much derision the Arabs were held in by the Afghanis. Understand that bin Laden's "value" to Saudi involvement in Afghanistan was that he was capable of raising his own funding and resources and didn't have to depend on anyone else. And understand that at the time, the US didn't fund bin Laden but rather funded the Mujahadeen; one doesn't mean the other.

This is exactly what I mean about reading the references we provide. There is detail there about the relationships of the various groups and people that are totally blown past and ignored when conspiracy advocates automtically conflate US aid to Afghan Mujahadeed with a relationship to bin Laden. Doing so is erroneous. Again, his publicly stated complaint about the US at that time was that they didn't aid him. Too many of you conspiracy believers ignore this.

 

[carlitos]

metamars:

- Reading the Daily Kos makes you dumber.
- Reading The Looming Tower will make you smarter.

Your choice.

A better question, I suppose, is why do I post here? I'm not entirely sure, actually - to a large extent, I view this as a form of entertainment, though not of a very uplifting kind. I mean, the endless parade of half-wits congratulating themselves for (from my perspective) failing to connect dots or posit plausible explanations with the same facility as a 10 year old, provides an endless 'rubber-necking delay' kind of diversion.

BTW, I do not think that "half wits" means what you think it means. If you are going to insult people, don't use "facility" when you mean "faculty." Ask one of your teachers about this, if it isn't clear.

 

[T.A.M.]

Perhaps because they share my view that JREF is a bastion of half-wits and misanthropes?

project much?

get a life. You know darn well there are a great many intelligent, articulate posters here. Sure, after 3 years of the truth movement insanity, many here haven't the want or energy to knock down for the 5000th time, the "Steel at GZ" or other such nonsense, but your comment, well besides not having any real evidence to back it up, is merely the opinion of a bitter poster who knows he cannot pull the wool over the eyes of the forum's citizenship.

This isn't dailykos, or "amazon.com forums" or any other sort of easy pickings.

You don't like it...Too bad.

bring them on. Bring anyone over here you like...see how they make out. I am sure for every MORON who posts over at the kos, there is someone who thinks your tripe is just that...tripe.

If they can't take the heat, tell them not to bother...cowards are not welcome.

As for your intellectual arrogance, while I do not have a problem with it persay (I dislike a moron spewing crap as much as the next guy), I think it is mere grandstanding, as I have never seen you post anything on this forum noteworthy either for its intellectual prowess, or its insightfulness.

You know where the door is.

TAM